By Susan Allison ( February 27, 2018, 12:20 PM EST) -- In Gaynor v. Bulen,[1] California's Court of Appeal recently articulated the proper approach for determining whether allegations constitute protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute,[2] a standard most recently clarified by the California Supreme Court in Baral v. Schnitt[3] and Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University.[4] The appellate court did so in Gaynor addressing a breach of fiduciary duty claim asserted by trust beneficiaries against an alleged "de facto trustee." Gaynor, viewed together with other recent decisions in a variety of contexts, confirms that the first prong standards articulated in Baral and Park seem to have provided much improved guidance for trial courts deciding anti-SLAPP motions....